On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Darin Fisher <
darin@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <
mjs@...> wrote:
>> Con: Encourages poor HI design (since these stock dialogs should almost
>> never be used).
>>
>> That being said, I find in-page UI less objectionable than a pop-up alert,
>> but in that case I'm not sure it makes sense to overload the existing API.
>> It would be better to make new methods so feature testing is possible. Even
>> given all that, I'm not confident of the value add over <dialog>.
>
> It seems like "poor HI design" is rather subjective. Some might prefer the
> OS-native look-and-feel of these simple dialogs.
I think you'll have a hard time finding people who prefer that. ^_^
> Good point about feature testing. I'd be OK with
> async{Alert,Confirm,Prompt} or whatever name variant we prefer.
>
> You don't see much value in the simplicity of having these methods be
> provided by the platform? It seems like <dialog> requires much more code
> to setup.
Hixie provided (in another thread) an example of the code required for
<dialog> that was feature-equivalent to popping a prompt. The
difference is minimal.
~TJ
